Vol 9, No. 2, December 2014, pp. 5-43
http://reflectingeducation.net
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs and Their
Relation to the Propagated Teaching Philosophy in Vocational Schools
and Colleges in Germany
Karin Rebmann
University of Oldenburg, Germany
Tobias Schlömer
Helmut Schmidt University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Germany
Florian Berding
University of Oldenburg, Germany
Manuela Paechter
University of Graz, Austria
ABSTRACT
The way teachers accomplish tasks and assignments in their work environment is also influenced
by their epistemic beliefs and the beliefs they assume their learners have (e.g., Brownlee, 2004;
Feucht, 2010). Despite the importance of knowing pre-service teachers’ epistemic beliefs for
developmental purposes, little research thus far has focused on gaining further insights into these
beliefs. To address this gap, 182 pre-service teachers enrolled in teacher training at the University
of Oldenburg (Germany) took part in our survey research and completed a German version of the
Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire by Schraw, Bendixen, and Dunkle (2002) about their beliefs and
those they assume of their learners. Latent Class Analyses identified a large heterogeneity of
teachers’ assumed beliefs, differentiating between a group that presumes absolutist views of their
learners and one that presumes less absolutist or even evaluativistic views. Even though the
identified groups of teachers differ with respect to the assumed beliefs, these assumed beliefs
largely coincide with their own beliefs. Only the group of teachers that presume their learners tend
to hold absolutist beliefs (e.g. knowledge is simply structured and stable over time) differ in all
dimensions regarding their own beliefs and those assumed of their learners; they hold less
absolutist or evaluativistic own beliefs (e.g., knowledge is interrelated and changeable) than their
learners. In contrast, the group that assumed that their learners hold less absolutist or even
evaluativistic beliefs show similar beliefs themselves.
These results point to inconsistencies in teachers’ epistemic beliefs systems. Given the significant
reforms within the German vocational education system and their implications on teachers’ roles, it
seems important to actively work on teachers’ epistemic beliefs. An essential element of teacher
education and especially initial teacher education should be to support pre-service teachers in
understanding their own epistemic beliefs in order to develop both their own beliefs and to support
the development of their learners’ epistemic beliefs to ensure they are aligned with the prerequisites
of the reformed education system and to maximise the learning opportunities.
INTRODUCTION
Teachers are faced with a multitude of complex tasks and decisions in the daily classroom
environment. Their performance is not only based on their professional knowledge of
didactics (i.e. knowledge on instruction) or the subjects they teach. Teaching decisions and
© UCL Institute of Education, University College London
ISSN 1746-9082
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
mannerisms are also affected by a teacher’s attitudes and beliefs about knowledge and its
acquisition, i.e., epistemic beliefs (Ariza & Del Pozo, 2002; Brownlee, 2004; Cheng, Chan,
Tang, & Cheng, 2009; Gullberg, Kellner, Attorps, Thoren, & Tärneberg, 2008). These beliefs
may affect the way teachers view their role as teachers, how they view their students’ role as
learners and their potential, or how they structure and present information and knowledge
(Cheng et al., 2009; Hashweh, 1996; Topcu, 2011).
Developmental models of epistemic beliefs act on the assumption that with continuous
experience, starting from teacher education to actually working in the profession, teachers may
gradually develop epistemic beliefs that are more beneficial for teaching (Brownlee, 2004;
Topcu, 2011). These models recommend that teacher education should explicitly address preservice teachers’ epistemic beliefs and assist and encourage them in the development of
conducive beliefs (i.e. beliefs that facilitate learning in vocational schools and colleges). Such
support however requires more information on how pre-service teachers think about and reflect
on knowledge and knowledge acquisition. The present study therefore aims to capture preservice teachers’ epistemic beliefs, as little research has been conducted in this area thus far.
Important to note is that not only a teacher’s belief but also her/his assessments and assumptions
of learners’ beliefs may have an impact on professional behaviour. For example, several studies
show relationships between learners’ epistemic beliefs, preferences for reading strategies,
motivation, and achievement (e.g. Bråten, Strømsø, & Samuelstuen, 2008; Cano, 2005; Paulsen
& Feldman, 1999; Ryan, 1984; Schommer, 1990, Strømsø, Bråten, & Samuelstuen, 2008). Thus,
“teachers who become aware of their own personal epistemology and learn to assess the
epistemic notions underlying their students’ belief systems can make informed choices
with regard to their instructional approaches and use of educational materials to guide
students toward a more advanced and school/discipline-specific epistemological
understanding.” (Feucht, 2010, p. 82)
“Given their power, understanding students’ beliefs about knowledge can provide insights into
their learning and motivation” (Buehl & Alexander, 2001, p. 386). So teachers should not only
be conscious of their own but also of their learners’ beliefs and consider them in their lesson
planning (Ariza & Del Pozo, 2002; Gullberg et al., 2008). We assume that teachers can support
their students more successfully when they know what students assume about learning.
Therefore the findings of this study should be important for teacher education. Based on this
perception, the present study also investigates which epistemic beliefs pre-service teachers
presume of their learners and to which degree they are homogeneous or heterogeneous regarding
these assumed beliefs.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Epistemic Beliefs
Schommer (1990, 1993a, 1993b; Schommer-Aikins, 2002) generated a model of epistemic
beliefs that is widely used in research (e.g. Bråten & Strømsø, 2005; Cheng et al., 2009;
Chan & Elliott, 2004; Elby & Hammer, 2010; Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002). It
assumes five dimensions of beliefs: structure, stability, and source of knowledge; and
control and speed of knowledge acquisition (see Fig. 1).
Reflecting Education
22
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
epistemic beliefs
beliefs about
knowledge
beliefs about
knowing
structure
stability
source
speed
control
simple –
complex
certain –
tentative
authority –
justification
effort –
process
innate –
acquired
Figure 1: Schommer’s Multidimensional Model of Epistemic Beliefs (1990).
Each dimension specifies a continuum ranging from an absolutist to an evaluativistic
belief. The dimension “structure” varies from an absolutist position that knowledge is
simply structured and consists of isolated components, to an evaluativistic position that
knowledge is complex and interrelated. The dimension “stability” can be distinguished by
a position that knowledge is absolute and stable over time on the one hand, and is subject
to a constant process of development on the other. The dimension “source” extends from
assumptions that there is an omniscient authority to impart knowledge, to a position that
knowledge is acquired through individual experiences. The dimension “control” depicts a
continuum varying from the view that the ability to learn is fixed at birth, to the view that
the ability to learn is acquired through experience. The dimension “speed” ranges from the
view that learning is a process which proceeds on an ad-hoc basis, to the view that learning
is a gradual process.
While most models of epistemic beliefs coincide on the first three dimensions as core
elements, it is sometimes discussed whether the last two dimensions regarding the
acquisition of knowledge should be included (Greene, Azevedo, & Torney-Purta, 2008;
Hofer, 2001). However, when individuals look more closely at the nature of knowledge,
they very likely also activate cognitions on the nature of knowledge acquisition (Pintrich,
2002). It therefore seems reasonable to include both types of beliefs, especially when
epistemic beliefs are explored in the context of learning and teaching. Elby and Hammer
(2010, p. 421) advocate the inclusion of both because
“what we see students doing in class … almost always involves aspects of both.
Because we are ultimately interested in how students approach knowledge and
learning in situations such as these, it serves us to treat knowledge and learning
together as part of epistemic cognition.”
Areas of Learning
This study focuses on pre-service teachers in vocational colleges and vocational schools in
Germany. This school type provides professional basic and/or specialized training as well
as general education at an upper secondary level. Vocational colleges belong to the “dual
Reflecting Education
23
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
education” system in which students do an apprenticeship at a company while attending a
vocational college part-time. Vocational schools are mainly high schools offering general
education as well as professional education in a more broadly-defined occupational field
(Pätzold, 2009). The majority of learners at vocational schools and colleges are between 15
and 25 years old.
Vocational schools and colleges have had to undergo significant reforms since 1996, a
result of initiatives introduced by the German school authority relating to school
organization (KMK, 2004). At its core, these reforms strive to achieve a constructivist and
activity-oriented approach to instruction (Rebmann, 2004; Rebmann, Tenfelde &
Schlömer, 2011) aiming to stimulate and promote the development of professional
competencies. Different legislative and organisational measures have accompanied its
implemention, with curricula being changed so that learning content is no longer divided
into separate subjects, but is now instead organized into so-called “areas of learning”
(KMK, 2004). This introduction of areas of learning suggests a transformation of
traditional school subjects and disciplines into a cross-curricular approach. Here, learning
contents are organized into comprehensive tasks and problems as they are carried out at the
workplace or in an everyday situation (Ertl & Sloane, 2004). Examples of areas of learning
in the first year of commercial education are “conversation with customers,” “presentation
of goods,” or “advertising and promotion of sales.” Areas of learning can be understood as
a didactical transformation of business and working processes. Consequently, learning
objectives describe competencies that learners are expected to develop within an area of
learning, and their grades are based on their (cross-curricular) performance within it.
The organisation of curricula along these areas of learning requires a teaching philosophy,
teaching arrangements, and activity-oriented learning environments that allow a
meaningful engagement with ideas and reasoning; the learners’ linking of different sources
of information and knowledge; and the understanding of the complex processes in working
and private life. With this being the case, it would be safe to assume that evaluativistic
beliefs would be required regarding the structure, source, and stability of knowledge. This
approach also assumes that all learners come to school with resources for understanding,
finding, and trying out solutions, and for reflecting on their errors and their consequences.
In these kinds of learning and teaching environments, the role of a teacher changes to a
facilitator of learning who stimulates autonomous learning processes. This again tends
towards more evaluativistic beliefs about the speed of knowledge acquisition. The teacher
here needs to provide learners with experiences that enable them to inform, arin e, plan,
act, monitor, and evaluate. This is why he/she also needs a comprehension of the learners’
beliefs about knowing and learning.
It remains to be seen to which degree these reforms have been implemented successfully –
after all, they involve profound changes in the role of teachers, the complexity of their
tasks, as well as their attitudes and beliefs towards knowing and learning.
Against this background, this study explores the epistemic beliefs of pre-service teachers in
vocational colleges and schools. It focuses on the following research questions:
•
•
How can the epistemic beliefs pre-service teachers assume of their learners be
characterized? Can groups of teachers that differ with regard to these assumed
beliefs be identified?
Which epistemic beliefs do pre-service teachers hold themselves?
Reflecting Education
24
Rebmann, K. et al.
•
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
To what extent do teachers’ assumptions about learners’ beliefs differ from their
own beliefs?
METHODOLOGY
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 182 pre-service teachers, all enrolled in teacher training at the University
of Oldenburg (Germany). They were recruited during courses preparing for the internships
in vocational schools and colleges and participated voluntarily in this study.The sample
included 105 (57.7%) female and 77 (42.3%) male students, with ages ranging from 20 to
43 years (M = 25.7, SD = 3.74). Most of the participants were Bachelor’s students
(n = 126, 69.2%); a smaller proportion were Master’s students (n = 56, 30.8%). All
participants majored in the subject “business and economics” – one of the subjects they are
going to teach in vocational schools and colleges upon graduation. The data was gathered
from only one university and focused on the domain of business and economics. Thus, the
results can most probably be generalized only to pre-service teachers in vocational schools
in the respective subject because the contents and the study organization differs for preservice teachers for other school types (e.g., primary school).
Participants were given two questionnaires at two points in time: At time 1, they described
their own epistemic beliefs. This means for the bachelor students that they filled in the first
questionnaire during their third semester and for the master students that they filled in the
questionnaire during their second semester. At time 2, approximately ten weeks after the
first assessment and after their five-week internship, the participants were asked to
describe the beliefs they assume about a typical learner. Consequently, this was at the
beginning of the fourth bachelor semester and third master semester for bachelor and
masters students respectively.
Measures
Pre-service teachers’ assumptions on their learners’ beliefs were measured with the
“Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire” (EBI) (Schraw et al., 2002). The EBI was chosen
because to our knowledge it is the only tool in German that has been investigated with
respect to its internal validity (Paechter, Rebmann, Schlömer, Mokwinski, Hanekamp, &
Arendasy, 2013). Internal validity of the instrument was further investigated for this survey
(see below).
All 182 students participating in the study were asked to look back at their internships at a
vocational school. Then they were asked to imagine a typical learner and describe this
learner’s epistemic beliefs. In other words, they had to answer the EBI items from the
viewpoint of this imagined learner. The EBI consists of 28 items by which students assess
their epistemic beliefs on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly agree) to 4
(strongly disagree). Higher scores indicate more evaluativistic beliefs, lower scores more
absolutist beliefs. The original structure encompasses the five subscales of structure,
stability, source, control, and speed of knowledge acquisition.
All 28 items of the (English) EBI were translated into German and translated back into
English by two experts with a Master’s degree in English. In a pre-study, the psychometric
Reflecting Education
25
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
properties of the translated version were arin e in a sample of 367 pre-service teachers
studying at the University of Oldenburg (Rebmann, Paechter, & Mokwinski 2012).
Excluding one missing case, this sample included 201 (54.9%) female and 165 (45.1%)
male students; 289 (79%) of them Bachelor’s and 77 (21%) Master’s students. Items with
difficulty indices of p below 0.2 or above 0.8 were excluded. To investigate the internal
validity of the EBI, orthogonal factor analysis was carried out on the 18 remaining items. It
yielded four factors with eigenvalues > 1. These factors describe the dimensions of
structure (five items), speed/stability (four items), control (five items), and source (four
items). The factors explained 41.9% of the total sample variance. Cronbach’s α coefficients
for the factors ranged from .57 to .71 (see Table 1). This structure corresponds to two
former analyses of the EBI: In one study, the same 28-item EBI version was used; in the
other study the 28-item version plus an additional set of new items were used (Hanekamp,
Mokwinski, & Rebmann, 2010; Paechter et al., 2013). In both studies, similar samples, i.e.
pre-service teachers and social science students, were investigated. All studies found the
same four-factorial structure and thus support the internal validity of the questionnaire.
Structure
Speed/
Stability
Control
Too many theories just complicate things.
.710
Things are simpler than most professors would
.651
have you believe.
I1
If a person tries too hard to understand a
.595
problem, they will most likely end up being
confused.a
I3
The best ideas are often the most simple.
.554
I4
Instructors should focus on facts instead of
.546
theories.
I9
Working on a problem with no quick solution is
.629
a waste of time.a
I7
If you haven’t understood a chapter the first time
.617
through, going back over it won’t help.a
I6
If two people are arguing about something, at
.611
least one of them must be wrong.b
I8
What is true today will be true tomorrow.b
.508
I14
Smart people are born that way.
.680
I12
Really smart students don’t have to work as hard
.626
to do well in their course.
I11
People’s intellectual potential is fixed at birth.
.622
I13
How well you do in school depends on how
.607
smart you are.
I10
Students who learn things quickly are most
.582
successful.a
I17
When someone in authority tells me what to do,
I usually do it.
I15
People should always obey the law.
I18
People shouldn’t question authority.
I16
Parents should teach their children all there is to
know about life.
Eigenvalue
1.75
1.80
4.00
.65
.68
.67
Guttman’s λ4
Cronbach’s α
.64
.71
.67
a
item was assumed as belonging to “speed”. b item was assumed as belonging to “stability”.
Source
I2
I5
.749
.664
.609
.447
1.66
.57
.57
Table 1: Pre-Study: Factor Structure of the EBI, Items, and Factor Loadings (n = 367)
Reflecting Education
26
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
The stability of the factorial structure was cross-examined in the sample of the 182
students who took part in the investigation of teachers’ assumed epistemic beliefs.
Confirmatory factor analyses showed satisfactory fit indices and supported the fourfactorial structure. RMSEA was .05, CFI was .94, and SRMR was .06. Generally, values of
RMSEA < .06 (N ≤ 250), and SRMR < .11 are considered as indicators of good model fit
(Hu & Bentler, 1999; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). CFI ≥ .90 can be considered as an
indicator of acceptable fit (Byrne 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Thus, the questionnaire with
18 items (EBI assumed beliefs) was used for measurement of teachers’ assumed beliefs.
Pre-service teachers’ own epistemic beliefs were also measured using the “Epistemic
Beliefs Questionnaire” (EBI) (Schraw et al., 2002). Confirmatory factor analyses to test
whether the four-factorial structure of the questionnaire on assumed beliefs also applies to
the questionnaire on own beliefs showed satisfactory fit indices with RMSEA = .06,
CFI = .91, and SRMR = .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Ethical Principles
This study was conducted following the guidelines for good scientific practice at the
University of Oldenburg as well as the “Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific
Practice,” a memorandum which includes recommendations on professional self regulation
in science that was published in 1998 by the German Research Foundation. These
principles are in line with ethical guidelines of the European Educational Research
Association (EERA) for upholding high academic and professional standards.
Regarding the rights of test persons, we followed the German Educational Research
Association’s code of ethics: The personal rights of the persons involved were respected.
The test persons were informed about the objectives and methods of the research project as
comprehensively as possible within the framework of the study. The consent of the
participants was obtained. The study avoided any harm or disadvantage to the test persons
while preserving their integrity and anonymity. Information obtained from test persons was
and continues to be treated as confidential, and data protection was ensured.
RESULTS
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed Beliefs
A Latent Class Analysis (LCA) of all items belonging to the respective dimension was
carried out to identify groups of pre-service teachers who differ in their epistemic beliefs
from the beliefs they assume of their learners.
LCA can be seen as a special case of cluster analysis (McLachlan & Peel, 2000). It uses
maximum likelihood estimation to fit a hypothetical model in which membership in a
specified number of latent classes is related to answers on the respective items and to fitted
probabilities of class membership for individuals. Each latent class can be interpreted as a
subpopulation with homogeneous profiles on the multiple observed measures included in
the analyses, while the differences between the latent classes indicate heterogeneity in the
sample. LCA uses fit indices to determine the ideal number of conceptually meaningful
classes. Due to the sample size, Consistent Akaike’s Information Criterion (CAIC), the
Reflecting Education
27
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and the n/k ratio were used to test the model fit of
the LCA solution (von Davier, 1997; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In this instance, the n/k
ratio should reach a minimum of 10.
LCA was performed using the software WINMIRA (von Davier, 2001). The
multidimensional model of epistemic beliefs and the associated measurement instrument
(the EBI) assume that the dimensions of epistemic beliefs are independent of each other
(Schommer-Aikins, 2002; Schraw et al., 2002). In other words, evaluativistic beliefs about
one dimension may be accompanied by absolutist beliefs about another dimension.
Because of this, for each dimension of epistemic beliefs (structure, speed/stability, control,
source) a separate LCA of all items belonging to the respective dimension was carried out.
Differences between pre-service teachers’ own beliefs and the ones they assume their
learners have with regard to the dimension “structure”
LCA was carried out on the sample of 182 pre-service teachers on the five items belonging
to the dimension “structure.” A rating scale model with two classes fitted the data best.
Compared to other models, it had the lowest BIC (2,397.78), the lowest CAIC (2,414.78)
and a arin e le n/k ratio of 10.71. LCA indicates two classes (subgroups) of pre-service
teachers: The majority hold rather absolutist beliefs (group 2: 52.2%, n = 95), i.e. they
believe that knowledge is more likely to be simply structured than being interrelated. A
smaller group of pre-service teachers (group 1: 47.8%, n = 87) shows absolutist views that
are still clearly pronounced (see Fig. 2). In this group, the mean values of all five items
clearly lie below the scale mean of 2.0. These pre-service teachers agree that learners
assume that knowledge is simply structured or that it consists of isolated components. This
is expressed by items such as “too many theories just complicate things”, “instructors
should focus on facts instead of theories”, or “if a person tries too hard to understand a
problem, they will most likely end up being confused”.
4
evaluativistic
Score
3
Group 1: 52.2%
2
Group 2: 47.8%
1
absolutist
0
I9
I10
I11
I12
I17
Horizontal axis:
I9 = If a person tries too hard to understand a problem, they will most likely end up being confused.
I10 = Too many theories just complicate things.
I11 = The best ideas are often the most simple.
I12 = Instructors should focus on facts instead of theories.
I17 = Things are simpler than most professors would have you believe.
0 = strongly agree; 1 = agree; 2 = neither agree nor disagree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly disagree.
Figure 2: Dimension “Structure” (Assumed Beliefs) (n = 182).
Reflecting Education
28
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Differences between pre-service teachers’ own beliefs and the beliefs they assume
their learners havewith regard to the dimension “speed/stability”
LCA of the four items of the dimension “speed/stability” advocated a rating scale model
with two classes (BIC = 1,929.54, CAIC = 1,944.54, n/k = 12.13). The majority of preservice teachers hold highly evaluativistic beliefs (group 2: 73.6%, n = 134). A smaller
group holds absolutist beliefs (group 1: 26.4%, n = 48). In this group, the mean value of all
four items lie clearly below the scale mean of 2.0. These pre-service teachers agree that
learners assume knowledge is stable over time and that learners assume learning is a
process which succeeds on a more ad-hoc basis. This is expressed by items such as “if two
people are arguing about something, at least one of them must be wrong”, “if you haven’t
understood a chapter the first time through, going back over it won’t help”, or “what is true
today will be true tomorrow” (see Fig. 3).
4
evaluativistic
Score
3
Group 1: 26.4%
2
Group 2: 73.6%
1
0
absolutist
I18
I20
I23
I27
Horizontal axis:
I18 = If two people are arguing about something, at least one of them must be wrong.
I20 = If you haven’t understood a chapter the first time through, going back over it won’t help.
I23 = What is true today will be true tomorrow.
I27 = Working on a problem with no quick solution is a waste of time.
0 = strongly agree; 1 = agree; 2 = neither agree nor disagree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly disagree.
Figure 3: Dimension “Speed/Stability” (Assumed Beliefs) (n = 182).
Differences between pre-service teachers’ own beliefs and the ones they assume their
learners have with regard to the dimension “control”
LCA of the five items of the dimension “control” advocated a rating scale model with two
classes (BIC = 2,442.00, CAIC = 2,459.00, n/k = 10.71). A large group of pre-service
teachers holds evaluativistic beliefs about four items and absolutist beliefs about the item
“really smart students don’t have to work as hard to do well in their course” (group 2:
69.8%, n = 127). A smaller group holds absolutist beliefs (group 1: 30.2%, n = 55). In this
group, the mean value of all five items lie clearly below the scale mean of 2.0. These preservice teachers agree that learners assume that the ability to learn is fixed at birth. This is
expressed by all five items (e.g., “students who learn things quickly are most successful”,
or “how well you do in school depends on how smart you are”) (see Fig. 4).
Reflecting Education
29
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
4
evaluativistic
Score
3
Group 1: 30.2%
2
Group 2: 69.2%
1
0
absolutist
I3
I5
I8
I14
I24
Horizontal axis:
I3 = Students who learn things quickly are most successful.
I5 = People’s intellectual potential is fixed at birth.
I8 = Really smart students don’t have to work as hard to do well in their course.
I14 = How well you do in school depends on how smart you are.
I24 = Smart people are born that way.
0 = strongly agree; 1 = agree; 2 = neither agree nor disagree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly disagree.
Figure 4: Dimension “Control” (Assumed Beliefs) (n = 182).
Differences between pre-service teachers’ own beliefs and the ones they assume from
their learners with regard to the dimension “source”
LCA of the four items of the dimension “source” advocated an equidistance model with
two classes (BIC = 1,959.89, CAIC = 1,976.89, n/k = 10.71). A large majority of the preservice teachers (group 1: 72.0%, n = 131) hold absolutist beliefs about three items (e.g.,
“people should always obey the law”, “parents should teach their children all there is to
know about life”) and evaluativistic beliefs about the item “people shouldn’t question
authority” (see Fig. 5). A smaller group (group 2: 28.0%, n = 51) holds absolutist views on
the item “parents should teach their children all there is to know about life” but
evaluativistic views on all other items. These items express the belief regarding whether
authorities can/should be challenged or not.
Reflecting Education
30
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
4
evaluativistic
Score
3
Group 1: 72.0%
2
Group 2: 28.0%
1
absolutist
0
I4
I7
I25
I26
Horizontal axis:
I4 = People should always obey the law.
I7 = Parents should teach their children all there is to know about life.
I25 = When someone in authority tells me what to do, I usually do it.
I26 = People shouldn’t question authority.
0 = strongly agree; 1 = agree; 2 = neither agree nor disagree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly disagree.
Figure 5: Dimension “Source” (Assumed Beliefs) (n = 182).
Differences between pre-service teachers’ own beliefs and the ones they assume their
learners have
It was further investigated to what extent the identified groups of teachers differentiate
between the beliefs they assume of their learners and their own beliefs. A composite score
was calculated for each of the four EBI dimensions: The scores on all items belonging to
one dimension were averaged to express a participant’s belief about it. From this, four
scores were derived expressing the beliefs a teacher assumes of a typical learner about the
respective dimensions, plus four scores expressing his/her own epistemic beliefs.
Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2 and explained in the following subsections.
Epistemic Beliefs
Assumed
Own
M
SD
M
SD
n
Structure
Group 1
Group 2
1.49
0.97
1.97
.64
.36
.43
1.71
1.64
1.77
.62
.65
.58
182
87
95
Speed/Stability
Group 1
Group 2
2.66
1.45
3.10
.88
.62
.44
3.16
3.34
3.09
.63
.54
.64
182
48
134
Control
Group 1
Group 2
1.80
0.96
2.17
.71
.46
.45
2.14
2.05
2.18
.66
.65
.67
182
55
127
Source
1.90
.67
1.88
.58
182
EBI Factors
Reflecting Education
31
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Group 1
Group 2
1.60
2.68
.45
.48
1.76
2.21
.52
.59
131
51
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics (Means, Standard Deviations, n) of Assumed and Own
Epistemic Beliefs
Differences beween assumed and own beliefs: dimension “structure”
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was carried out with the two groups of
pre-service teachers’ assumed beliefs about the dimension “structure” as a betweensubjects factor (group 1: 87 participants with assumed absolutist beliefs, group 2: 95 preservice teachers with assumed less absolutist beliefs) and the type of beliefs (assumed
beliefs versus own beliefs) as a within-subjects factor. MANOVA showed a significant
main effect for the factor “group”, F(1, 180) = 85.25, p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.32, as well as a
significant main effect for the factor “type-of-beliefs”, F(1, 180) = 24.30, p ≤ .001,
η2 = 0.12. The interaction “group x type-of-beliefs” was significant, F(1, 180) = 83.43,
p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.32.
Pre-service teachers that assume their learners hold pronounced absolutist beliefs about the
dimension “structure” (M = 0.97, SD = 0.36) differentiate between assumed and own
beliefs. They show fewer own absolutist beliefs (M = 1.64, SD = 0.65). These pre-services
teachers agree that their learners strongly assume that knowledge is simply structured.
Regarding their own beliefs they also assume that knowledge is simply structured, but their
view is less pronounced. Pre-service teachers that assume their learners have absolutist
beliefs do not really differentiate between their own beliefs (M = 1.77, SD = 0.58) and
those they assume of their learners (M = 1.97, SD = 0.43) (see Fig. 6a). These pre-service
teachers agree that learners assume that knowledge is simply structured and consists of
isolated components and they assume that for themselves.
Reflecting Education
32
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Structure
4
Mean
3
Group 1:
47.8%
2
Group 2:
52.2%
1
a
own
assumed
0
Speed/Stability
4
Mean
3
2
Group 1:
26.4%
1
Group 2:
73.6%
own
assumed
0
b
Figure 6: Dimensions “Structure” and “Speed/Stability”: Mean Values of Assumed
and Own Epistemic Beliefs for Group 1 and 2.
Differences beween assumed and own beliefs: dimension “speed/stability”
MANOVA was carrried out with the two groups of pre-service teachers’ assumed beliefs
about the dimension “speed/stability” as a between-subjects factor (group 1: 48
participants with assumed absolutist beliefs, group 2: 134 teachers with assumed
evaluativistic beliefs) and the within-subjects factor “type-of-beliefs”. MANOVA showed
a significant main effect for group, F(1, 180) = 89.30, p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.33, as well as a
significant main effect for the within-subjects factor “type-of-beliefs”, F(1, 180) = 261.74,
p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.59. The interaction “group x type-of-beliefs” was significant,
F(1, 180) = 268.02, p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.60.
Pre-service teachers in group 2 with assumed evaluativistic beliefs (M = 3.10, SD = 0.44)
also hold evaluativistic beliefs themselves (M = 3.09, SD = 0.64). They do not differentiate
between assumed and own beliefs. In other words, these pre-service teachers assume and
Reflecting Education
33
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
agree that learners assume knowledge is subject to a constant process of development and
learning is a gradual process. Teachers in group 1 assume that their learners hold absolutist
beliefs about the dimension “speed/stability” (M = 1.45, SD = 0.62). In contrast, their own
beliefs are highly evaluavistic (M = 3.34, SD = 0.54) (see Fig. 6b). In other words, whereas
pre-service teachers assume that knowledge is subject to a constant process of development
and learning is a gradual process they agree that their learners assume that knowledge is
absolute and stable over time and that learning is a process on an ad-hoc basis.
Differences beween assumed and own beliefs: dimension “control”
MANOVA was carrried out with the two groups of pre-service teachers’ assumed beliefs
about the dimension “control” as the between-subjects factor (group 1: 55 participants with
assumed highly absolutist beliefs, group 2: 127 teachers with assumed evaluativistic
beliefs) and the within-subjects factor “type-of-beliefs” showed a significant effect for
group, F(1, 180) = 81.49, p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.31, as well as a significant effect for type of
beliefs, F(1, 180) = 107.06, p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.37, plus a significant interaction
“group x type-of-beliefs”, F(1, 180) = 101.64, p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.36.
Pre-service teachers who assume that their learners hold highly absolutist beliefs
(M = 0.96, SD = 0.46) hold evaluativistic own beliefs (M = 2.05, SD = 0.65). In other
words, pre-service teachers that believe that their learners assume that the ability to learn is
fixed at birth and they think that their own ability to learn is aquired through experience. In
group 2, the teachers with assumed evaluativistic beliefs do not seem to differentiate
between their own beliefs and those assumed of their learners (own M = 2.18, SD = 0.67;
assumed M = 2.17, SD = 0.45) (see Fig. 7a). These pre-service teachers think that their
own ability to learn is acquired through experience and they believe that their learners
think that, too.
Differences beween assumed and own beliefs: dimension “source”
MANOVA was carrried out with the two groups of teachers’ assumed beliefs about the
dimension “source” as the between-subjects factor and showed a significant effect,
F(1, 180) = 126.35, p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.41 (group 1: 131 participants with assumed absolutist
beliefs, group 2: 51 teachers with assumed evaluativistic beliefs), as well as a significant
effect for the within-subjects factor “type-of-beliefs”, F(1, 180) = 11.36, p ≤ .001,
η2 = 0.06. The interaction “group x type-of-beliefs” was also significant,
F(1, 180) = 44.58, p ≤ .001, η2 = 0.20.
Pre-service teachers who assume absolutist beliefs of their learners (M = 1.60, SD = 0.45)
hold absolutist beliefs themselves (M = 1.76, SD = 0.52). These pre-service teachers
assume that there is an omniscient authority to impart knowledge and they believe that
their learners share that belief. Teachers with assumed evaluativistic beliefs of their
learners hold slightly less but still evaluativistic own beliefs (assumed M = 2.68,
SD = 0.48; own M = 2.21, SD = 0.59) (see Fig. 7b). These pre-service teachers assume that
knowledge is acquired through individual experience and they believe that their learners
agree even stronger.
Reflecting Education
34
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Control
4
Mean
3
2
Group 1:
30.2%
1
Group 2:
69.8%
a
own
assumed
0
Source
4
Mean
3
Group 1:
72.0%
2
Group 2:
28.0%
1
own
assumed
0
b
Figure 7: Dimensions “Control” and “Source”: Mean Values of Assumed and Own
Epistemic Beliefs for Group 1 and 2.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Discussion
The organisation of curricula along areas of learning requires activity-orientated learning
environments that allow a meaningful engagement with ideas and reasoning; the learners’
linking of different sources of information and knowledge; and the understanding of the
complex processes in working and private life. At its core, these reforms strive to achieve a
constructivist and activity-orientated approach to instruction (Rebmann, 2004; Rebmann,
Tenfelde, & Schlömer, 2011). Such an approach fits better to evaluativistic beliefs.
Empirical studies also support this notion. For example, Aypay (2011) showed that the
more pre-service teachers believed in uncertain knowledge, in effort in learning and
Reflecting Education
35
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
assumed that expert knowledge should be questioned the more they preferred a
constructivist teaching and learning conception. In contrast, the belief in certain knowledge
and fixed ability was related with traditional teaching and learning conceptions. Berding
and Lamping (2014) found that the more teachers believed in interconnected and selfconstructed knowledge the more they preferred complex and ill-structured tasks in
textbooks.
Learners’ epistemic beliefs also play an important role because teachers’ didactic methods,
the learning material, and learning tasks are interpreted by learners through their
“epistemic lenses” (Feucht, 2010). Teachers who are aware of their learners’ epistemic
beliefs can make informed choices with regard to their instructional approaches and use of
educational materials as they guide learners towards a desirable epistemic understanding.
Although many studies investigate the relationship between epistemic beliefs of teachers
and their teaching conceptions (e.g. Aypay, 2011; Chai, Teo, & Lee, 2010; Chan & Elliot,
2004; Cheng et al., 2009), to our knowledge there are no studies on the assumptions that
teachers have regarding their learners’ epistemic beliefs. Our literature research yielded
only one study on assumptions on others’ beliefs, namely the case study of Brownlee,
Berthelsen, Dunbar, Boulton-Lewis, and McGahey (2008) on child care workers and their
beliefs about children’s learning. The vocational background as well as the age group of
learners differs from our survey.
The questions remain: To what degree are teachers aware of their learners’ epistemic
beliefs, and are they able to differentiate between their personal beliefs and those of their
learners?
Differences between pre-service teachers with regard to their assumptions of their
learners’ epistemic beliefs
In this study, all teachers had to describe a typical learner’s epistemic beliefs. The results
of the Latent Class Analyses show that teachers differ widely in the epistemic beliefs they
presume of their learners.
With the dimension “structure” both groups of pre-service teachers hold absolutist beliefs;
one group of pre-service teachers (47.8%) even held a pronounced absolutist view. In
terms of the relative position of the factor mean score below the midpoint 2.0 on the rating
scale, these pre-service teachers agree that learners believe that knowledge is simple and
clearly structured, that an instructor should focus on facts, or that things are often simpler
than they are taught by a teacher. However, in their future profession as teachers in
vocational schools, these students are expected to apply the constructivist and activityoriented approach to areas of learning. The idea of learning areas emphasizes overcoming
the compartimentalization of subjects in order to support learners’ acquisition of
knowledge and skills by comprehensive tasks oriented towards workplace or daily life
situations (Ertl & Sloane, 2004). Research has shown that these kinds of approaches
harmonize better with evaluativistic beliefs about the structure of knowledge because they
are often accompanied by a higher appreciation of teaching styles that support learning by
doing and learning from mistakes (Yadav & Koehler, 2007). How will teachers cope with
these contradictionary attitudes they assume of their learners?
With the dimension “speed/stability”, the majority of participants (73.6%) expect their
learners to hold highly evaluativistic beliefs, while a smaller group (26.4%) assumes that
their learners hold absolutist beliefs. Thus, most of the pre-service teachers expect their
Reflecting Education
36
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
learners to think it is worth working on problems with no quick solution, or that
understanding a matter mostly needs time and effort. This is in line with the idea of
learning areas. In this didactic approach learners are exposed to tasks and problems that
have no quick solutions. However, one out of four teachers thinks his/her learners do not
agree with the idea of autonomous learning processes. The question remains regarding how
these teachers will cope with these attitudes they assume of their learners.
With the dimension “control”, the majority of pre-service teachers assume their learners
hold rather evaluativistic beliefs (69.8%). They reject notions such as success in school is
based mainly on stable factors like intelligence or talent, and acknowledge learners’
individual potential to expand their abilities. Their views are consistent with the results of
the dimension “speed/stability”, where a majority highly approved how their learners think
it is worth working on ambiguous problems or investing time and effort in learning. This
again is in line with the idea of learning areas. In spite of this, 30.2% of teachers still
assume their learners hold absolutist beliefs about the dimension “control”. According to
this epistemic stance, learners’ fixed abilities, not teachers’ professional activities, are
accountable for learning success and achievement in learners’ views. It remains to be seen
whether these learners would approve of a constructivist and activity-oriented approach
towards areas of learning at all. And, how would teachers cope with these kinds of
contradictionary attitudes of their learners?
With the dimension “source” the minority of teachers (28%) assume their learners have a
tendency towards evaluativistic beliefs. However, the majority of teachers (72%) presume
their learners hold absolutist beliefs about the dimension “source” – this was especially
expressed by the item “when someone in authority tells me what to do, I usually do it”.
This view is not in line with the idea of areas of learning. According to this instructional
approach learning contents are organized into comprehensive tasks and problems as they
are carried out at the workplace or in an everyday situation (Ertl & Sloane, 2004) (compare
section “Areas of Learning” in this article). This didactic approach emphasizes that
learners need different sources of information and that usually many perspectives have to
be taken into account in order to solve problems. Both groups however share a more
evaluativistic stance and believe that their learners disapprove of the item “people
shouldn’t question authority”. This view may mirror the lower significance of the belief in
authority in the participants’ culture. They also agree with the concept of areas of learning
in which the teacher obtains the role of a facilitator, and in which learning by individual
experiences is encouraged.
Overall, the results of this study show that pre-service teachers’ own epistemic beliefs
differ from the beliefs they assume of their learners. With this in mind, a group of preservice teachers with presumed absolutist views of their learners could be distinguished
from a group with less absolutist or even evaluistic views on all four dimensions of
epistemic beliefs. Interestingly, these assumed abolutist beliefs are not well aligned with
the didactic and curricular approach of areas of learning advocated by the recent school
reforms for vocational schools and colleges described above.
In typical German vocational teacher education (and in teacher education in general) little
emphasis has so far been placed on supporting pre-service teachers in the development of
epistemic beliefs. The current results, however, emphasize the necessity to provide support
for teachers. As a first step, it would appear that pre-service teachers would need to
identify and analyze their learners’ beliefs in order to adequately address them. They
should be encouraged to map out learners’ diverse beliefs early on in courses (Strømsø &
Reflecting Education
37
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Bråten, 2011). Also, measures should be taken that assist the development of beliefs that
are in line with the advocated teaching approach, e.g., by initializing more learning
opportunities that support thinking beyond and across single topics, supporting the
application of knowledge and skills, and stimulating the acquisition of knowledge applied
in interdisciplinary, work-based and daily life-based contexts. Teachers also need to
explicitly address learners’ beliefs. In teacher education, it seems particularly important to
combine the reflection and discussion on personal epistemology with pre-service teachers’
activities and their experiences (Strømsø & Bråten, 2011). Such measures are not only a
matter of instructor-student interaction. They apply to the organization of teacher education
as a whole, spanning from changes in curricula to advocating specific learning and
teaching arrangements.
Pre-service teachers’ own beliefs and the beliefs they assume of their learners
When looking at the overall results of the Latent Class Analyses, with all dimensions, all
pre-service teachers show similar assessments of their own beliefs. Because learners’
actual beliefs could not be assessed in this study, it cannot be determined to what extent the
pre-service teachers’ assessments are accurate descriptions. With this being said, the
overall agreement on learners’ beliefs might in fact be an indication of an accurate
assessment. Even though the identified groups of teachers differ with regard to the
presumed beliefs, they largely correspond with their own beliefs.
Only the groups of teachers assuming what tend to be absolutist epistemic beliefs of their
learners differed on all four dimensions between their own and their assumed beliefs of
their learners. In general, they hold less absolutist or evaluativistic own beliefs than they
presume of their learners. With the dimensions “structure” and “source” they hold less
absolutist beliefs. With the dimensions “speed/stability” and “control” they have
evaluativistic own beliefs. These pre-service teachers probably act and assess using a
developmental model in which learners gradually develop their beliefs starting from a
generally absolutist stance towards a more and more evaluativistic one. From this kind of
developmental point of view, one might assume that teachers with longer teaching
experience hold stronger evaluativistic views. In many instances, this kind of model
reflects learners’ actual epistemic developments over the course of academic education
from school to university education all the way to professional training (Baxter-Magolda,
1993; Brownlee, 2004). However, there is a lack of research on this question of the
development of epistemic beliefs.
In contrast, pre-service teachers with absolutist views on the dimensions structure, control,
and source assume beliefs of their learners similar to or slightly higher than their own ones.
These pre-service teachers’ beliefs and assumptions appear contradictory when they e.g.
expect their learners to be more willing than they themselves to invest time and effort in
learning. Also, these beliefs contradict the ideas behind the concept of areas of learning.
This instructional approach emphasizes that knowledge is complex and interrelated, that
learners need different sources of information, and that usually many perspectives have to
be taken into account in order to solve problems. This group of pre-service teachers could
especially benefit from supporting and encouraging the development of their own
epistemic beliefs and their beliefs about their role as teachers. A good idea would be to
give these pre-service teachers opportunities to calibrate their personal epistemologies with
teaching knowledge and knowledge on learners. However, according to our research of the
literature studies on this question are still missing.
Reflecting Education
38
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Conclusion
Pre-service teachers’ epistemic beliefs and those they presume of their learners were
investigated in the setting of German teacher education for vocational colleges and
schools. This setting was chosen because vocational schools and colleges have experienced
extensive reforms in curricula and school organisation in recent years, shifting instruction
towards an activity- and competence-based, cross-curricular approach that concentrates on
areas of learning. The results of the study show significant inconsistencies between preservice teachers’ beliefs, the beliefs they assume of their learners, and beliefs that are
supportive to teach according to the constructivist, instructional concept of areas of
learning. These inconsistencies between pre-service teachers’ beliefs, the beliefs they
assume of their learners, and the beliefs required for the above instructional approach can
be explained by pre-service teachers’ learning backgrounds at school and university,
making it relatively clear just how important the education of teachers in vocational
education is as it aims at supporting pre-service teachers in developing beliefs that are
necessary for their future profession. This makes it all the more essential to first support
pre-service teachers in developing evaluativistic beliefs that better agree with the idea of
learning areas. In order to support pre-service teachers in developing such beliefs teacher
educators need to sensitize them for the importance of epistemic beliefs in teaching and
learning processes. They could also analyze teaching methods regarding their epistemic
basis and how these methods effect in student learning (Kang 2008). Moreover, teacher
education programs should be based on a constructivist teaching and learning conception
(Brownlee, 2004; Cheng et al. 2009). And secondly, it is important to support pre-service
teachers in adequately and correctly recognizing the beliefs their learners hold. Thus,
teacher education programs need to improve diagnostic abilities – in general and with
respect to own and assumed epistemic beliefs.
This study is not without its limitations, first of which was the sampling of data that was
gathered from only one university. Moreover, the study design focused on the domain of
business and economics. Future studies should enlarge the data set and include more
domains. It would also be advisable not to assess only pre-service teachers’ assumptions
about their learners’ beliefs, but actual learners’ beliefs as well.
REFERENCES
Ariza, R. P., & Del Pozo, R. M. (2002). Spanish teachers’ epistemological and scientific
conceptions. European Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2), 151–169.
Aypay, A. (2011). The adaption of the Teaching-Learning Conceptions Questionnaire and
its relationships with epistemological beliefs. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,
11(1), 21–29.
Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1996). Epistemological development in graduate and professional
education. The Review of Higher Education, 19 (3), 283–04.
Reflecting Education
39
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Berding, F., & Lamping, C. (2014). Epistemologische Überzeugungen als Bestandteil der
professionellen Kompetenz von Lehrkräften und ihre Bedeutung für die Auswahl und
Bewertung von Lernaufgaben aus Schulbüchern des Wirtschaftslehreunterrichts
[Epistemic beliefs arin e of teachers’ professional competencies and their influence on
the selection of task out of textbooks]. München: Hampp.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2005). The relationship between epistemological beliefs,
implicit theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning among Norwegian
postsecondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 539–565.
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always
better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple
expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 814–840.
Brownlee, J. (2004). An investigation of teacher education students’ epistemological
beliefs. Research in Education, 72(1), 1–18.
Brownlee, J., Berthelsen, D., Dunbar, S., Boulton-Lewis, G., & McGahey, P. (2008).
Investigating epistemological beliefs in vocational education for child care workers: New
ways of thinking about learning and training. The Australian Educational Researcher,
35(3), 135–153.
Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational
Psychology Review, 13(4), 385–418.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with Mplus. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through
secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75(2), 203–221.
Chai, C. S., Teo, T., & Lee, C. B. (2010). Modelling the relationships among beliefs about
learning, knowledge, and teaching of pre-service teachers in Singapore. The Asia-Pacific
Education Reseacher, 19(1), 25–42.
Chan, K.-W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Epistemological beliefs across cultures. Educational
Psychology, 24(2), 123–142.
Cheng, M. M. H., Chan, K.-W., Tang, S. Y. F., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2009). Pre-service
teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (2), 319–327.
Davier, M. von (2001). WINMIRA 2001 [Computer software]. St. Paul, MN: Assessment
Systems Corp.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing, in L. D. Bendixen
and F. C. Feucht (Ed.), Personal epistemology in the classroom (pp. 409–434). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reflecting Education
40
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Ertl, H., & Sloane, P. F. E. (2004). The German training system and the world of work.
bwp@, 7, 1–15.
Feucht, F. C. (2010). Epistemic climate in elementary classrooms, in L. D. Bendixen and
F. C. Feucht (Ed.), Personal epistemology in the classroom (pp. 55–93). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Greene, J., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological
cognition. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142–160.
Gullberg, A., Kellner, E., Attorps, I., Thoren, I., & Tärneberg, R. (2008). Prospective
teachers’ initial conceptions about pupils’ understanding of science. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 31(3), 257–278.
Hanekamp, Y., Mokwinski, B., & Rebmann, K. (2010) (2010, September).
Epistemologische Überzeugungen von angehenden Handelslehrer/innen zum eigenen
Wissenserwerb und zum angenommenen Wissenserwerb von Schüler(inne)n [Preservice
teachers‘ epistemic beliefs and their assumptions on the epistemic beliefs of pupils]. Paper
presented at the 74th Meeting of the Working Group for Empirical Educational Research
(AEPF), Jena, Germany.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 47–63.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and
teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit-indexes in covariance structure
analysis. Structural Equation Modelling, 6 (1), 1–55.
Kang, N.-H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals,
and practices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 478–498.
KMK [Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the
Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany] (2004). Handreichung für die Erarbeitung
von Rahmenlehrplänen der Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) für den berufsbezogenen
Unterricht in der Berufsschule und ihre Abstimmung mit Ausbildungsordnungen des
Bundes für anerkannte Ausbildungsberufe [Recommendation arin e development of
framework curricula for vocational instruction in vocational college and their coordination
with the training regulations of recognized trade]. Bonn: Ständige Konferenz der
Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Paechter, M., Rebmann, K., Schloemer, T., Mokwinski, B., Hanekamp, Y., & Arendasy,
M. (2013). Development of the Oldenburg Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire (OLEQ), a
German Questionnaire based on the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). Current Issues in
Education, 16(1), 1–15.
Pätzold, G. (2009). Research on vocational colleges and schools, in F. Rauner and R.
Maclean (Ed.), Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research
(pp. 346–354). Dordrecht: Springer.
Reflecting Education
41
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Paulsen, M. B, & Feldman, K. A. (1999). Student motivation and epistemological beliefs.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 17–25.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal
epistemology, in B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology (pp. 389–
414). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rebmann, K. (2004). Didaktik beruflichen Lehrens und Lernens [Didactics of vocational
instruction and learning]. Grundlagen der Weiterbildung – Praxishilfen (GdW-Ph), 57, 1–
20.
Rebmann, K., Tenfelde, W., & Schlömer, T. (2011). Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik
[Vocational training anf business education]. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Rebmann, K., Paechter, M., & Mokwinski, B. (2012). Do teachers differ between their
own epistemic beliefs and the beliefs they assume of their pupils?, in Charlesworth, Z. M.,
Cools, E., and Evans, C. (Ed.), Individual differences. Proceedings of the 17th Annual
International Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network, 26–28
June, 2012, Cardiff, Wales (pp. 322-336). Brno: Tribun EU.
Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in
epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 248–258.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.
Schommer, M. (1993a). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and
learning among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34, 355–370
.
Schommer, M. (1993b). Epistemological development and academic performance among
secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406–411.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological
belief system, in B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology (pp. 103–
118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the
Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI), in B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal
epistemology (pp. 261–275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2011). Personal epistemology in higher education, in J.
Brownlee, G. Schraw, and D. Berthelsen (Ed.), Personal epistemology and teacher
education (pp. 54–67). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific
epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and
Instruction, 18(6), 513–527.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Reflecting Education
42
Rebmann, K. et al.
Pre-service Teachers’ Assumed and Own Epistemic Beliefs
Topcu, M. S. (2011). Turkish elementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and
moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 99–125.
Yadav, A., & Koehler, M. (2007). The role of epistemological beliefs in pre-service
teachers’ interpretation of video cases of early-grade literacy instruction. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 335–361.
Correspondence:
Karin Rebmann
University of Oldenburg
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Tobias Schlömer
Helmut Schmidt University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Florian Berding
University of Oldenburg
Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Manuela Paechter
University of Graz
Austria
E-mail: [email protected]
Reflecting Education
43